[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn status proposal

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2001-09-16 05:27:38 CEST

Philip Martin <philip_martin@ntlworld.com> writes:

> However to open another can of worms, how if at all, is branch
> information going to be shown?
> Version numbers on a branch look like MMMM.BB.VVV, according to
> svn_fs.h, where MMMM is the mainline version that was branched, BB is
> the branch number and VVV is the version on the branch.

Stop right there. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but those
numbers are secret under-the-hood implementation details of the
subversion filesystem. They're not exposed to the outside world.

And... they have nothing to do with "branches". They're merely a way
of describing lineage between nodes. IOW, if the filesystem is told
to create a "successor" to node 3.2, and 3.3 *already* exists, then it
creates a new "child" by adding two numbers: The quantity
of numbers in a node-ID has absolutely nothing to do with branches, or
even node importance. :-)

Second : there are no "branches" or "tags" in Subversion -- at least
not the way you think of them in CVS. There are only directories in
the filesystem; and directories can duplicated in the filesystem at
almost no cost. A "tag" is just a directory that you copy and then
never touch. A "branch" is a directory that you copy, commit on, and
then merge (later) into another directory. But tags and branches are
only labels; really, they're all just ordinary subdirs in the
filesystem. Read the spec for examples. :-)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:41 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.